Evaluation of interface pressure and temperature management in five wheelchair seat cushions and their effects on user satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Factors such as the manufacturing materials, shape or even the mechanical and thermal response of sitting Pressure Redistribution Support Surfaces (PRSS) can be potential contributors to pressure ulcers. However, few studies have compared a number of characteristics of the most frequently used devices. OBJECTIVE: To compare three potential contributors to pressure ulcers in five commercial PRSS: pressure redistribution, temperature and perceived comfort. METHOD: Study with a cross-over randomized design in healthy volunteer participants. Data was collected in a temperature and relative humidity controlled environment. To assess thermal response, the temperature (Flir-E60) of the region of interest was captured before and after use of each PRSS for further analysis. The region of interest was the gluteal zone. To assess the pressure redistribution a pressure mat (XSensor®) was used between the 5 cushion and each study participant using a standardized method. Finally, a subjective perception questionnaire recorded comfort, adaptability and thermal sensation parameters. Data analysis levels of significance were set at 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 22 participants completed the assessments. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline temperatures between PRSS (>0.05). Pressure redistribution analysis showed significant differences between all PRSS in all variables evaluated except in the maximum and peak pressure index al sacrum. The subjective assessment suggested no major user-perceived differences between PRSS. CONCLUSION: Seat cushions made of open cell polyurethane foam blocks of variable hardness and the horseshoe cushion (also open cell polyurethane foam) seem to provide a more effective pressure relief characteristic than those injected with polyurethane foam and gel in most of the studied pressure variables. However, the cushions provide similar thermal response and perceived comfort.

Oral health related quality of life of edentulous patients after denture relining with a silicone-based soft liner.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of benefits caused by a treatment on quality of life is very relevant. Despite the wide use and acceptance of soft denture liners, it is necessary to evaluate the patient's response about the use of these materials with regard to improvement in oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of denture relining in the OHRQoL of edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two complete denture wearers had their lower dentures relined with a silicone-based material (Mucopren soft, Kettenbach, Germany) according to chairside procedures. OHRQoL was assessed before and after 3 months of relining by means of OHIP-EDENT, and the median scores were compared by Wilcoxon test (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: After 3 months of relining, participants reported significant improvement of their OHRQoL (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: Denture relining with a soft liner may have a positive impact on the perceived oral health of edentulous patients.

Effect of an acrylic resin-based resilient liner applied to mandibular complete dentures on satisfaction ratings among edentulous patients.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether an acrylic resin-based resilient liner (ARL) could improve the satisfaction ratings of complete denture wearers. The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the satisfaction ratings of conventional acrylic resin denture (CARD) wearers and those of ARL denture (ARLD) wearers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From April 2004 to July 2006, a randomized controlled trial was conducted at two centers, including 74 edentulous patients. Of these, 37 patients were each randomly allocated to the ARLD and CARD groups. All of the patients rated their satisfaction with dentures, including general satisfaction and satisfaction with chewing ability, speaking, cleaning, stability, retention, comfort, and esthetics. These satisfaction ratings were measured by a 100-mm visual analog scale. Perceived chewing ability of different foods, divided into five grades, was measured using a questionnaire. The mastication index (MI) was calculated for each grade. RESULTS: General satisfaction, satisfaction with chewing, and satisfaction with speaking were significantly higher in the ARLD than in the CARD group (P = .049, .025, and .049, respectively). The chewing satisfaction with maxillary dentures in the ARLD group was significantly higher than that of the CARD group (P = .02). No significant difference existed between the MI of the ARLD (69.2 ± 17.0) and CARD groups (66.7 ± 18.7). CONCLUSIONS: Within its limitations, this study showed that the ARL improves a complete denture wearer's satisfaction ratings.